Tuesday, August 31, 2010

The State Department included a Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona's immigration law into a United Nations human rights report to show how U.S. rule of law can be an example to the world, a State Department spokesman said Monday.

Spokesman P.J. Crowley said the Arizona immigration law included in an Aug. 20 report to the U.N. high commissioner on rights came up during the preparation period, when teams went around the country gathering ideas for the report.

Crowley said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton included the dispute in the report because she thought the U.S. could serve as "a model" to other nations.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday demanded that a reference to the law be removed from the State Department report on ways the federal government is protecting human rights.

It is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, Brewer, a Republican nearly guaranteed re-election as a result of the legal dispute, wrote to Clinton.

"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," she said.

On Monday, she described the situation as "nationalism run amok."

There was more to this story, but I did not copy it to this post. I love this Gov. more and more, and this makes me want to move to Az. even more than I did before.

Everyone seems to be outraged over Rick Sanchez calling Obama "the cotton pickin' president" as seen in this video:

But really, it's nothing new for CNN or its associates as Julia Penn demonstrates:

And then there's CNN's Lou Dobbs who abruptly switches gears from very eloquently and intelligently describing the truth about racism in America and slams the shifter into the no-man's land of picking cotton:

In my world, saying someone's out of their cotton pickin' mind isn't racist at all. Maybe that's because my family and my ancestors actually picked cotton and know that it's a mind-numbingly boring, tedious, and physically difficult task that will drive you insane if you're not careful.

That said, I doubt anyone at CNN has ever picked cotton or knows anyone who has. Those people and people like them are so removed from actual diversity, they feel like it's their personal mission to make sure that everyone else is painfully aware of the problem with diversity in America and that you need them to help you with it.

I learned about the first video from WAMK but it's all the buzz on the witch hunt internet. He also wryly points out the back-peddling and truth-twisting in the comments over at HuffPo. I happen to agree with many of the comments there but at the same time, those comments should apply to both sides of the aisle and they don't.

Sarah Palin would be an ineffective president, say 6 in 10 Americans, according to new poll

Sarah Palin is a force to be reckoned with, but the majority of Americans don’t think she’d make an effective President.

A new 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll released Monday found that despite her star status, 59% of Americans don't think Palin would be a hit in the White House.

Even among Republicans, just 40% said the former vice presidential candidate would make an effective President.

Since she broke onto the national stage in 2008, Palin has leveraged her political past into multi-million dollar book deals, high-profile speeches, and a Midas touch when it comes to endorsing Republican candidates for the House and Senate, but she hasn't convinced voters she'd be a success as President.

Results showed 75% of Democrats and 63% of independents did not feel she would be effective in office.

Only 26% of those surveyed said they felt confident she would be a successful President, including 47% of Republicans, 12% of Democrats, and 21% of independents.

Though voters may not feel ready for a Palin 2012 ticket yet, the former Alaska governor has managed to maintain her star power.

At least 80,000 people came to see her speak on Saturday at Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" event in Washington, D.C.

And out of 19 primary races in which Palin endorsed a candidate before the election, 11 won.

Despite the rumors that Palin intends to challenge Obama in the next presidential election, the Wasilla native has not confirmed her intention to run for office.

"I’ve never committed to running for President,” she told Fox News earlier this month. "That’s not where my focus is."

Okay? Get it? The results are overwhelming. Palin is super-unpopular. Most people don't like her. Not at all. Not one bit. So, stop it. All of you. Give it up. Stop liking her. Join the crowd. Get on the bandwagon. Be part of the cool crowd. C'mon- you know you want to belong. Of course, that line of reasoning only appeals to Libs and Democrats. The rest of us know better and the less the Left likes her, the more we do. I'm sure you're all dying to know my opinion though. Yes, I think she'll make a great president just not in 2012.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

I found these videos on moonbattery but while watching them, I realized something awful. It's the lefties who are always preaching with moral superiority about protecting our environment. Personally, I'll be damned before I let people who treat the land like that tell me how to treat the environment. More and more I'm realizing that those who talk are not those who do.

Here's the video at the conclusion of Glenn Beck's rally in D.C. If you look at the post earlier showing the number of people there, you'll realize that while it wasn't as big of a turnout as Obama's inauguration, it was still a substantial number of people.

And here's the video at the conclusion of Obama's inauguration. Not only is it disgusting but it's also reminiscent of communism in the former Soviet Union. Coincidence or is it that Liberals actually like living in those conditions?

I really enjoy his blog ... it's an eclectic mix of stuff but sometimes heavy on making fun of religion and conservatives.

Anyway, I love reading it and tossing my two cents into the comments. Ohhh, the comments ... you can't swing a dead cat full circle in there without maiming three or four socialists/communists of your intellectual betters ... and boy do they howl ... it's great fun ... go getcha some.

So anytime J-Walk posts about Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Michele Bachman etc, the libs go into a veritable frenzy ... it's like someone tossed a lame, bleeding missionary into a drinking party in a headhunter's camp. Some of them think before writing but mostly it's just a rush to see who can be the quickest to assign a Hitler label ... or a racist label ... or an idiot label ... or all three.

The entertaining part is reading the "logic" they use to get there ... HYS-terical (if you don't get brain damage.) Seriously, it wouldn't be funny unless they actually believed their own logic and rhetoric. The place is dripping with "goodthink" but there ARE some who provoke me to think through different positions etc and I appreciate that.

A few days ago, J-Walk posted about Glenn Beck and the frenzy was on. I pointed it out in the comments and J-Walk responded with the following:

Evil Klown, you're very quick to laugh at people when they call people like Beck idiots, but you never actually say anything positive about these conservative heroes of yours.

How about a summary of exactly what it is you like about Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, Bachmann, etc? Be specific. Also tell us how America would be a better place if people like that were in charge. Think it through, and don't just use what others have said.

Write it up and post it on your blog. I'll make a blog post about it, link to it, and you'll get lots of attention.

Ok, where to begin. First of all, the people he mentions aren't my "heroes" (although Rush comes closest.)

Secondly, let's begin with this understanding ... no matter what I say, a liberal goodthinker will rip it apart using their "logic." We can argue and argue about the "benefits" of statism -- i.e. social security, welfare, roads, on and on, so I won't bother. All I'll say is this ... all I want is for do-gooder liberals to leave me alone ... that's it. As long as I'm not violating someone else's rights or property then I should be free.

If I am violating someone else's rights or property then that person is free to take me to court to seek redress.

To my mind, people like Palin, Bachmann, et all are more likely to vote against people who want to torment the crap out of me "help me." I think of Obama, Pelosi, and their ilk, as the guy around your neighborhood with nothing better to do than go looking for imagined violations of the POA rules ... or to find situations that need solving with more POA rules or spending/raising more POA money. And no matter how much you do, it's never enough. And no matter how much he raises the dues, it's never enough.

I also think that Palin, Bachmann, etc would vote to reduce/limit the size and scope of the federal government. One way to do that is reducing taxes. When the government doesn't have money then they can't fund a kazillion departments and agencies ... all of which are hell bent on tormenting "helping" me.

The thing I don't like about many Republicans is that they always seem about one inch away from finding a reason to impose their religious beliefs on me (abortion/gay marriage.) I don't want anyone pushing ANY of their beliefs on me ... period ... I want people to keep their beliefs (especially religious beliefs) to themselves.

It is for this reason that we need the Constitution ... i.e. the rule of law, not the rule of man (in fact -- the least amount of "ruling" possible.) If we just defend individual freedom and property rights, that's about 90% of the "ruling" we need ... people can seek redress in the courts.

Right now it seems we have the rule of man. We have people in high office who do nothing but investigate each other ... and whichever party is holding power uses it to conduct endless "investigations" into the other. For example, as I write this, the Obama administration is doing its damnedest to jail Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Sure, they CLAIM he's "profiling" but I think that's a crock of crap. They're going after him because he's enforcing federal immigration law and I think this "going after your political enemies " is beneath contempt. The Obama administration is doing everything it can to undermine enforcement of immigration law and then pretending otherwise. I guess they think they're fooling everyone.

So, to sum up ...

What I like about conservatives is:

I believe they'll try to reduce the size and scope of government and they'll vote to protect me and my property from the libs and their beliefs statists. They'll be more likely to keep the federal government out of making decisions for me regarding which types of toilets and light bulbs I can use.

The reason I think the country would be a better place with conservatives in charge is:

Because I think conservatives will vote to reverse course on many of the policies in place now. I think that freedom is better than tyranny ... and right now I think we're closer to tyranny than freedom. That way libs (and everyone else) are free to organize themselves and "help" as much as they want ... as long as they don't take my money to do it. I think libs making me give them my money is the same as a church forcing me to donate to subsidize their agendas. (By the way, churches are tax exempt so, as far as I'm concerned, I AM subsidizing them.)How long have the libs been in charge of all three branches of government? Why don't they make themselves useful and kill the religious tax deduction? The Republicans couldn't stop them.

Speaking of taxes -- there is hardly anything that isn't taxed anymore (and they're always looking for more.) Is the tax code even comprehensible by the average high school graduate? What do you call a person whose master takes more than 50% of what he earns?

Is there anything that is no longer within the purview of the federal government (which the libs try to justify by the commerce clause.) If the founders meant for the commerce clause to justify unlimited federal government then why did they bother writing the rest of the Constitution? Just common sense items like this are why I believe we're closer to tyranny than freedom.

And lastly ... what of the Constitution? Either it was ineffective at preventing this ... or the government people (including the judiciary) have just been ignoring it ... one or both?

Melbourne, Aug 26 (ANI): Astronomers are predicting that a massive solar storm, much bigger in potential than the one that caused spectacular light shows on Earth earlier this month, is to strike our planet in 2012 with a force of 100 million hydrogen bombs.

Several US media outlets have reported that NASA was warning the massive flare this month was just a precursor to a massive solar storm building that had the potential to wipe out the entire planet's power grid.

Despite its rebuttal, NASA's been watching out for this storm since 2006 and reports from the US this week claim the storms could hit on that most Hollywood of disaster dates - 2012.

Similar storms back in 1859 and 1921 caused worldwide chaos, wiping out telegraph wires on a massive scale. The 2012 storm has the potential to be even more disruptive.

"The general consensus among general astronomers (and certainly solar astronomers) is that this coming Solar maximum (2012 but possibly later into 2013) will be the most violent in 100 years," News.com.au quoted astronomy lecturer and columnist Dave Reneke as saying.

"A bold statement and one taken seriously by those it will affect most, namely airline companies, communications companies and anyone working with modern GPS systems.

"They can even trip circuit breakers and knock out orbiting satellites, as has already been done this year," added Reneke.

No one really knows what effect the 2012-2013 Solar Max will have on today's digital-reliant society.

NASA said that a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences found that if a similar storm occurred today, it could cause "1 to 2 trillion dollars in damages to society's high-tech infrastructure and require four to 10 years for complete recovery".

The reason for the concern comes as the sun enters a phase known as Solar Cycle 24.

Most experts agree, although those who put the date of Solar Max in 2012 are getting the most press.

They claim satellites will be aged by 50 years, rendering GPS even more useless than ever, and the blast will have the equivalent energy of 100 million hydrogen bombs.

"We know it is coming but we don't know how bad it is going to be," Fisher told Reneke.

"Systems will just not work. The flares change the magnetic field on the Earth and it's rapid, just like a lightning bolt. That's the solar effect," he added.

The findings are published in the most recent issue of Australasian Science. (ANI)

It's probably just a coincidence that the mainstream media would sensationalize this one particular event. They don't do it all the time.

LONDON — British Airways apologized on Friday after a crew member mistakenly played an emergency message warning Hong Kong-bound passengers that the plane they were on was about to plunge into the sea.

About 275 passengers on a Tuesday flight out of London's Heathrow Airport heard the message: "This is an emergency. We may shortly need to make an emergency landing on water," NBC News reported.

"People were terrified, we all thought we were going to die," passenger Michelle Lord, 32, told Britain's The Sun newspaper, which first reported the incident. "They said the pilot hit the wrong button because they were so close together."

The oil spill in the Gulf may be mostly out of the headlines now but Louisiana voters aren't getting any less mad at Barack Obama about his handling of it. Only 32% give Obama good marks for his actions in the aftermath of the spill, while 61% disapprove.

Louisianans are feeling more and more that George W. Bush's leadership on Katrina was better than Obama's on the spill. 54% think Bush did the superior job of helping the state through a crisis to 33% who pick Obama. That 21 point margin represents a widening since PPP asked the same question in June and found Bush ahead by a 15 point margin. Bush beats Obama 87-2 on that score with Republicans and 42-30 with independents, while Obama has just a 65-24 advantage with Democrats.

Obama has done a worse job than Bush in handling the crisis in the gulf so of course, the media is all over this story. That must be the case since they did nothing but talk about how awfully Bush did in the aftermath of Katrina, right? They seemed to love ripping him to shreds over his "failures" but when Obama does a far worse job, all we hear are signs of crickets.

They keep preaching about being fair and balanced but only when it's their people being criticized. It's no wonder they think FOX is biased- they think that being unbiased means to agree with them 100% of the time and not to give both sides of a story. This is the mainstream media in a nutshell- they cheer when the Right fails and cheer when the Left succeeds. Of course, this means we really only hear cheering when the Right fails or when they manage to distort the truth sufficiently to convince themselves the Left accomplishes even the smallest of tasks.

Friday, August 27, 2010

He doesn't mention any byproduct of the procedure. That must mean there is no byproduct of the procedure. Unless, of course, you're a lib and expect the byproducts only to be jingle bells and puppy farts.

Maybe I'm a lost ball in the high weeds but I have a plethora of questions about this "news report". I've made bold the sections I find dubious. As you read, see if you can realize what's wrong with the picture. At the end of the quoted text, I'll explain my questions.

WASHINGTON -- A House panel wants the owners of two Iowa companies involved in a massive egg recall to explain how eggs from their farms were linked to as many as 1,300 cases of salmonella poisoning.

A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee will hold a hearing on the recall Sept. 14. The committee is inviting Austin "Jack" DeCoster, the owner of Wright County Egg, and Orland Bethel, the owner of Hillandale Farms, to testify. The two farms have recalled more than 550 million eggs after they were linked to the cases of salmonella poisoning.

The committee is doing an investigation into the recall and has written both farms, asking about company operations, communications with the government and what they knew and when.

The panel has also writtenthe Food and Drug Administration, which oversees the safety of shell eggs, and the Agriculture Department, which oversees other egg products and the health of the hens. The committee asked for records of inspections and past communications with the two farms, along with other documents. The FDA has said it has "no inspectional history" with the two farms.

Rep. Rose DeLauro, D-Conn., who heads the spending committee that oversees the FDA and USDA, has also written letters to the two agencies.

A spokeswoman for Wright County Egg would not say if DeCoster will attend the September hearing, but said the company is "working right now" to respond to the committee.

"We will approach it in the same forthright manner as we have in our cooperation with FDA to date," said Hinda Mitchell.

DeCoster has not responded to interview requests, and a worker at his office's headquarters near Galt, Iowa on Wednesday said he wasn't available. At his home in Clarion, Iowa on Wednesday, his wife Patricia also said he was not around. She said the last few weeks "have been quite a time for us" but declined further comment.

A spokeswoman for Hillandale Farms did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

FDA officials have said they don't expect the recall to grow beyond the two farms. The number of illnesses, which can be life-threatening, especially to those with weakened immune systems, is expected to increase.

Thoroughly cooking eggs can kill the bacteria. But health officials are recommending people throw away or return the recalled eggs.

Okay, let's start at the beginning. These two companies are recalling 550 million eggs (roughly 3 months of production) and yet the FDA "which oversees the safety of shell eggs" said it has "no inspectional history" with the two farms. I'm not sure what they mean by "inspectional history" but I suspect a smoke screen since "inspectional" sends off a red flag in my spell-checker and I can't find any credible definition for the word and the only time the word seems to be used at all is on various governmental sites. It seems to me that if you're going to use a word that has little to no meaning, you're doing it intentionally as a way of covering your ass later.

Rep. Rose DeLauro- Democrat- who heads the spending committee oversees the two agencies has sent letters to the two agencies? Letters? Really?

Then there's Hinda Mitchell. Who is that? There is no mention of her anywhere else in the article nor is there any reference to her relevance to the report. Nevertheless, she states that they (whoever "they" are) will deal with the FDA just as they have in the past. Of course, the lack of "inspectional history" might indicate that they haven't dealt with the FDA in the past. Since I don't really know what "inspectional history" means, I can't say for sure.

Lastly, FDA officials who presumably have no inspectional history with the two companies in the past are fully ready to state that they don't expect the recall to exceed these two farms. How would they know? Are they even doing their job? Ever? Maybe they're just crossing their fingers and hoping it won't grow so they can go back to their cubicles and play sudoku in peace ON OUR DIME.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

So ... many years ago I boughtthe above knife sharpener. About every 3-4 months I pull all my wife's knives out and sharpen them. She only has about eight or nine and it takes me about an hour to do it all. And don't even THINK about reading or something whilst sharpening because a) the thing is LOUD and b) you have to watch WTF you're doing ... cuz it's a snake handling with holding the knife at the correct angle and remember how many times you've pulled the knife through and so forth. Seriously, there's three different "stages" (two sides to each stage) and you have to pull the knife slowly through each stage about 6-10 times and then repeat on the other side... it's LAME ACTION.

I thought I was so cool for buying this because nothing is cooler than a sharp knife ... capisky? Yes, I thought you did. Well, it never got the knives very sharp if you ask me ... acceptable but not really REALLY sharp. I accepted my doom but bitched about it now and then.

It has two stages - course and fine. The course side looks like steel blades and the fine side looks like white ceramic rods. On this one, you only have to pull the knife through each side about 3-4 times ... and it's silent (except for the scraping of the blade) and you don't have to do it for each side ... and I bought it at Wal Mart for under $10 curp ... and IT WORKS GREAT!! I did all the knives last night in under ten minutes. WOO HOO! I can't TELL you how happy I am about this "discovery."

It was a complete accident. I was at Wal Mart buying something else and I saw these hanging there ... and the recommendations of my friends came back to me so I decided to try it -- GOOD MOVE!! Our knives are sharper than they've EVER been.

I never really knew they weren't getting that sharp. I'd do them and my wife would be happy for a while and that was it ... but the last year or so I've been chopping a lot of vegetables for salads so I was painfully aware of the sucky condition of the knives. I sharpened them a few times on the "bad boy electric sharpener" but I never really thought they were all that sharp.

Last night, after sharpening one, I tried it on a tomato ... NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE ... I was impressed. I guess the $60 sharpener is trash now. Thought you'd like to know.

Between her blog and infrequent contributions to ehow.com, over the last few years she says she’s made about $50. To [Marilyn] Bess, her website is a hobby. To the city of Philadelphia, it’s a potential moneymaker, and the city wants its cut.

Of course they do. There is one thing governments are good at ... identifying new things and issuing rules to tax them with lightning speed.

In May, the city sent Bess a letter demanding that she pay $300, the price of a business privilege license.

“The real kick in the pants is that I don’t even have a full-time job, so for the city to tell me to pony up $300 for a business privilege license, pay wage tax, business privilege tax, net profits tax on a handful of money is outrageous,” Bess says.

It would be one thing if Bess’ website were, well, an actual business, or if the amount of money the city wanted didn’t outpace her earnings six-fold. Sure, the city has its rules; and yes, cash-strapped cities can’t very well ignore potential sources of income. But at the same time, there must be some room for discretion and common sense.

"... room for discretion and common sense." LMAO, Good one, Mark. I have to ask ... do you REALLY believe there is going to be any common sense applied to this situation?

When Bess pressed her case to officials with the city’s now-closed tax amnesty program, she says, “I was told to hire an accountant.”

Sounds like good advice to me. Sounds like the city really cares and is advising you according to their level of concern. Perhaps we need more bureaucrats to avoid messes like this. That's probably the problem ... too much work on too few people.

She’s not alone. After dutifully reporting even the smallest profits on their tax filings this year, a number — though no one knows exactly what that number is — of Philadelphia bloggers were dispatched letters informing them that they owe $300 for a privilege license, plus taxes on any profits they made.

Even if, as with Sean Barry, that profit is $11 over two years.

Wait a minute ... do I detect some indignancy here. Do you actually think, for one second, that the city gives one flaming DAMN about these people? On the contrary, my friend, their attitude is more like "They OWE us the tax. They're just lucky we don't charge them MORE."

Oh, and another thing ... if they DO come to their senses, don't expect any correction letters to be sent out in a timely fashion. In fact, don't expect them at all. I'm guessing their whole bureaucracy is teeming with idiots. Their job is to issue rules from on high. Your job is to do as you're told, jackass.

To say that these kinds of draconian measures are detrimental to the public discourse would be an understatement.

Yes, an understatement ... not to mention a total waste of time Do you think anyone will be held accountable for this idiocy? Do you think the voters will vote anyone out? The voters will get EXACTLY what they deserve.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

I just received this email from NotEvilJustWrong. It's yet another example of classic Lib bravado and it's revolting.

Friends,

Last March James Cameron sounded defiant.

The Avatar director was determined to expose journalists, such as myself, who thought it was important to ask questions about climate change orthodoxy and the radical "solutions" being proposed.

Cameron said was itching to debate the issue and show skeptical journalists and scientists that they were wrong.

“I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads," he said in an interview.

Well, a few weeks ago Mr. Cameron seemed to honor his word.

His representatives contacted myself and two other well known skeptics, Marc Morano of the Climate Depot website and Andrew Breitbart, the new media entrepreneur.

Mr. Cameron was attending the AREDAY environmental conference in Aspen Colorado 19-22 August. He wanted the conference to end with a debate on climate change. Cameron would be flanked with two scientists. It would be 90 minutes long. It would be streamed live on the internet.

They hoped the debate would attract a lot of media coverage.

"We are delighted to have Fox News, Newsmax, The Washington Times and anyone else you'd like. The more the better," one of James Cameron's organizers said in an email.

It looked like James Cameron really was a man of his word who would get to take on the skeptics he felt were so endangering humanity.

Everyone on our side agreed with their conditions. The debate was even listed on the AREDAY agenda.

But then as the debate approached James Cameron's side started changing the rules.

They wanted to change their team. We agreed.

They wanted to change the format to less of a debate—to "a roundtable". We agreed.

Then they wanted to ban our cameras from the debate. We could have access to their footage. We agreed.

Bizarrely, for a brief while, the worlds most successful film maker suggested that no cameras should be allowed-that sound only should be recorded. We agreed

Then finally James Cameron, who so publicly announced that he "wanted to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out," decided to ban the media from the shoot out.

He even wanted to ban the public. The debate/roundtable would only be open to those who attended the conference.

No media would be allowed and there would be no streaming on the internet. No one would be allowed to record it in any way.

We all agreed to that.

And then, yesterday, just one day before the debate, his representatives sent an email that Mr. "shoot it out " Cameron no longer wanted to take part. The debate was cancelled.

James Cameron's behavior raises some very important questions.

Does he genuinely believe in man made climate change? If he believes it is a danger to humanity surely he should be debating the issue every chance he gets ?

Or is it just a pose?

The man who called for an open and public debate at "high noon" suddenly doesn't want his policies open to serious scrutiny.

I was looking forward to debating with the film maker. I was looking forward to finding out where we agreed and disagreed and finding a way forward that would help the poorest people in the developing and developed world.

But that is not going to happen because somewhere along the way James Cameron, a great film maker, has moved from King of the World to being King of the Hypocrites.

- Ann McElhinney

You are receiving this email because you signed up at our website noteviljustwrong.com or you donated to Not Evil or you gave us your business card at a conference. Feel free to unsubscribe if you don't want to hear about Not Evil!

These idiots go out and try to stop Japanese whaling. They're just about effective as you and I are except you and I don't require millions of dollars a year to be completely ineffective. "Admiral" Paul Watson and his crew are the classic example of a Liberal undertaking which requires a ton of money, provides an outlet for useless, unemployable people to feel like they're "making a difference", and gives learjet liberals a venue for spending their money to assuage their guilt over the ways they got rich.

Yes ... well ... why SHOULD he give ALL the information? That would let people make up their OWN minds ... and I'm afraid that's just not what Jon Stewart is all about. He think you won't know the "rest of the story." You know why? Because he thinks you're stupid ... you know ... just like he thinks Sarah Palin is stupid ... just like he thinks all conservatives are stupid. Yessir, Jon Stewart sure thinks a lot of people are stupid.

I wonder why he calls himself Jon Stewart when his given name is Jon Leibowitz. Why is that, Jon? Let me guess, you think we're so stupid that we can't pronounce Leibowitz?

Now Obama and Eric Holder want to sue the sheriff in Arizona for enforcing immigration law. Listen, they want to put this guy in JAIL!

A federal investigation of a controversial Arizona sheriff known for tough immigration enforcement has intensified in recent days, escalating the conflict between the Obama administration and officials in the border state.

Justice Department officials in Washington have issued a rare threat to sue Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio if he does not cooperate with their investigation of whether he discriminates against Hispanics. The civil rights inquiry is one of two that target the man who calls himself "America's toughest sheriff." A federal grand jury in Phoenix is examining whether Arpaio has used his power to investigate and intimidate political opponents and whether his office misappropriated government money, sources said. More here: OH PLEASE, trump up some more charges, Obama.

The standoff comes just weeks after the Justice Department sued Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R) because of the state's new immigration law, heightening tensions over the issue ahead of November's midterm elections. The renewed debate has focused attention on Arpaio, a former D.C. police officer who runs a 3,800-employee department, and a state at the epicenter of the controversy over the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.

LMAO - Again the Democrats are trying to jail the good guys and release the murdering criminals who are stealing your money. I call the Democrats "The Opposite People" because it seems like they are ALWAYS o the wrong side of EVERY issue. It also seems to me that a person with even a 22 IQ would be able to determine the relative idiocy of these people.

Democrats are intentionally harmful to America and law abiding people. Criminals and terrorists they let free but regular people they will jail.

Another recent example ... You know that mosque that idiot 'Imam" is trying to build next to "Ground Zero?" Well, if you oppose it and question it then Nancy Pelosi wants to "investigate" you. THAT'S RIGHT, she wants to investigate YOU!

Oh, did I mention the State Dept sent the "Imam" on a fund raising trip? THAT'S RIGHT, they're using YOUR money to send this guy across the middle east to "promote understanding." LMAO, that's rich.

The imam behind a plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero is set to depart on a multi-country jaunt to the Middle East funded by the State Department -- raising concerns that taxpayers may be helping him with the controversial project's $100 million fund-raising goal. More here:

LMAO - they just can't stop squandering your money. It's like they come in your house, steal your money, and give it to a known criminal so he can buy a gun and come back to get more. And then they stand there and DARE you to meep. These scumbags have got to go.

A 3-year-old federal law that makes it a crime to falsely claim to have received a medal from the U.S. military is unconstitutional, an appeals court panel in California ruled Tuesday.

The decision involves the case of Xavier Alvarez of Pomona, Calif., a water district board member who said at a public meeting in 2007 that he was a retired Marine who received the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military decoration.

Alvarez was indicted in 2007. He pleaded guilty on condition that he be allowed to appeal on First Amendment grounds. He was sentenced under the Stolen Valor Act to more than 400 hours of community service at a veterans hospital and fined $5,000.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with him in a 2-1 decision Tuesday, agreeing that the law was a violation of his free-speech rights. The majority said there's no evidence that such lies harm anybody, and there's no compelling reason for the government to ban such lies.

The dissenting justice insisted that the majority refused to follow clear Supreme Court precedent that false statements of fact are not entitled to First Amendment protection.

In June, a judge in Denver ruled that the federal law making it illegal to lie about being a war hero was unconstitutional because it violates free speech.

The act revised and toughened a law that forbids anyone to wear a military medal that wasn't earned. The measure sailed through Congress in late 2006, receiving unanimous approval in the Senate.

Dozens of people have been arrested under the law at a time when veterans coming home from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are being embraced as heroes. Many of the cases involve men who simply got caught living a lie without profiting from it, including Ramona resident David Weber, who impersonated a Marine major general at an event at the Ramona VFW in 2009 celebrating the Marine Corp's birthday. At that event, Weber, 69, was given the first piece of cake, an honor reserved for the highest ranking officer present.

"I have often said that God gave us one mouth and two ears so that we would listen more than we talk," Weber told the Ramona Sentinel, which broke the story. "I did not follow that advice."

Most of the impostors have been ordered to perform community service, but Weber was also sentenced to three years probation and ordered to pay a $500 fine.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles said it was deciding whether to appeal Tuesday's ruling.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

So ... you know how the cops seize the money and assets of witches drug dealers and other "law breakers?" (So everybody keep quiet please) Well, it turns out ... sit down now cuz you're going to be shocked ... it turns out that "The idea that the government can take someone's property on the legal fiction that property itself can be guilty of a crime is an invitation to corruption, and provides a way for the government to get its hands on private goods under a lower burden of proof than it needs to actually convict someone (criminal forfeiture, different from civil forfeiture, requires an actual conviction)."

Keep in mind they can nab your stuff without ever charging you with a crime -- they just might THREATEN to charge you if you don't give them your money/stuff.

So Indiana (and other states) decided to remove the "possible conflict of interest" by stipulating that this money would go to schools instead of cops. (In my mind this is just the other side of the "take it from witches" mindset ... i.e. the "we're giving it to DESERVING people/institutions (o everybody keep quiet please."

Given all of these ways around the law, how much forfeiture money is actually getting back to the school fund in Indiana?

Almost none. This weekend, the Indianapolis Star ran a front-page article looking at where all the forfeiture money is going. I'd like to link to it, but in an apparent effort to keep the paper as irrelevant as possible, the Star has lately adopted a policy of not putting its most important pieces online. But as it turns out, Indiana attorney Paul Ogden actually beat the paper to the story by several weeks. Last month, Ogden put up a post on his blog that came to many of the same conclusions the Star published this weekend. Here's what Ogden found:

Of Indiana's 92 counties, just five have paid any forfeiture money into the school fund over the last two years. Three of those made just one payment. One county made a single payment of $84.50. Only one county could arguably be seen as complying with the law: Wayne County made 18 payments totalling $38,835.56.

The total amount of forfeiture money paid into the account from all 92 Indiana counties over the two-year period was just $95,509.72.

To put that figure into perspective, Ogden notes that attorney Christopher Gambill—the private attorney who, as I noted in my article, handles civil forfeiture cases for three Indiana counties and argued the case for Putnam County to keep Anthony Smelley's money—made $113,145.67 in contingency fees off just a single forfeiture case.

Yes, they steal and steal and steal your money and nobody says a word. Everything is fine ... just keep voting for the same people ... they have your best interests at heart.

I love it ... this is just another case where the government (geniuses in the ruling class) have assigned a witch label to a group of people and then it's open season on their wallets and their "stuff" -- YEE HAW!!

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Some member (employee really) of a union got fired for trying to unionize other members (employees really). His boss fired him because he was concerned that if the members (employees really) of the union unionized, he would no longer be able to fire whomever he wanted whenever he wanted.

So I just got an email from my federal congressional representative. Usually this guy votes the way I would like on major issues. However, I read his email (which I excerpted below) and I just shook my head.

The “Make it in America” initiative has included: creating good American jobs, providing the lowest taxes in 60 years for the middle class and small businesses, and closing tax loopholes that send jobs overseas. We must make certain that we are doing all we can to ensure that we can re-ignite our manufacturing base and “Make It in America.”

Hey, I have an idea -- how about you keep government's nose out of business. Stop "helping." I know you THINK you're a big help -- but you're not -- you're a noose. Competitive businesses don't need the help of government. Stop taxing everything that moves and you won't have to worry about "leveling the playing field."

The only thing government should do is match other countries tariff wise. In other words, if country X taxes/regulates our goods then we tax/regulate theirs at the same rate - that's all.

As a part of the “Make it in America” initiative, I have supported a number of pieces of legislation:

* The U.S. Manufacturing Enhancement Act of 2010 contains hundreds of tariff suspensions and reductions which would help American companies grow and support further job creation. OK, this sounds good ... but something tells me there's more to it. Think about it ... when have you EVER known congressmen to lower taxes without a HUGE fight ... and telling us how we'll be sorry etc etc etc. Something tells me they're giving my money to their friends.

* The National Manufacturing Strategy Act creates a Manufacturing Strategy Board that will develop short- and long-term goals for America’s manufacturing industry. Huh? Why does government have to be involved in this? Why can't private companies get together and do it themselves? Who are the "geniuses and masterminds that are going to come up with the "goals." Why is this reeking of costing me money? What tells me some "friends of the congressman" are going to be getting paid my tax money for this whole "project?"

* The Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act supports our clean American energy economy by making it easier for companies to navigate foreign markets and promoting investments and reducing production costs for these companies. Again ... huh? If our companies have a competitive product then why do they need the help of the government (read - "my tax money") to sell their product? Something tells me they won't be selling their "product." Something tells me they'll pretend to "do business" but they'll really just be getting my money through the backdoor of the government "helping."

* The Emergency Trade Deficit Commission will develop trade policies so that we no longer import more than we export. Wow -- the "Emergency Trade Deficit Commission." Sounds great. And who will be on this "commission?" And why do we import more than we export? Surely you've given it some thought. If the answer isn't "other governments tax our goods more than we tax theirs" (or something similar) then I don't want to hear it.

My theory? Our government is so intrusive and demanding and regulatory and taxing on our own businesses that we aren't competitive with overseas business anymore -- it's over -- its history -- it's finished -- it's through -- they've killed it and it's almost permanent.We have GOT to vote these people out.

* The Strengthening Employment Clusters to Organize Regional Success Act (SECTORS) will help address local skills shortages by bringing employers in key industries together with education, labor, workforce, and other groups to identify and provide training tailored to meet the sector needs of that region’s economy. Oh, spare me. And who is going to be in charge of this? And will you ever see them meet? And will you (we) have any input whatsoever in this deal? And isn't it the commies who refer to "sectors" as it relates to the economy?

Seriously, is this the hokiest crap you've ever heard? All this is is more of my money going straight down the toilet to some friends of the congressman (or his buddies etc.) "Provide training tailored to meet the needs of that region's economy" -- what a pant load.

These damn people have got to go. They're squandering my money and my kids' money and my grandkids' money with reckless abandon. They cannot be stopped. Nothing ... NOTHING can stop them. Too bad there isn't a way to start jailing some of them.

For those of you who remember Timothy Treadwell aka Grizzly Man, you'll remember that the video of his final moments (wherein he was eaten by a grizzly bear who had gotten sick and tired of his crap) was never released to the public because it was deemed too sensitive. Well, here it is for your viewing pleasure. Watch it to the end of the credits for my favorite part.

Monday, August 16, 2010

HINDMAN — Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul took harsh digs at President Barack Obama while mining for votes in Kentucky coalfields Saturday, saying busybody regulators backed by the president are stifling the coal sector.

Paul vowed to challenge Obama "every step of the way" if elected in November, seeking to capitalize on a political environment where flocks of voters have never warmed to the Democratic president.

The Tea Party-backed Paul never mentioned his Democratic opponent, Jack Conway, in his speech at a coal appreciation event in Knott County, instead reserving his attacks for Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and federal environmental regulators.

Paul claimed Obama "cares nothing about Kentucky and cares even less about Kentucky coal."

That's where you're wrong, Mr Paul. Obama cares a great deal about coal. He wants to kill coal. He wants to kill oil. He's fighting to ban drilling and he'll do all he can to ban coal mining too. He has to make sure everyone knows that coal/oil are witches -- dirty, filthy, witches. THEN he can come for them/you/us with impunity.

"We have a president who is forcing the EPA down our throats," Paul said. "Even without changing the rules, the EPA is stifling the permit process, and people (are) out of work here because of the president and his policies.

"With all due respect, Mr. President, you're wrong, and you need to stay out of Kentucky affairs. And you need to keep the EPA out of our affairs because we need jobs, and we're not going to get jobs with a busybody EPA that's in our way."

LOL @ Obama and the Democratics ... working as hard as they can to break the back of America. Hey, shitstains -- we're coming for you in November. Yes, we know the lame duck congress is going to try to pass a bunch of horsecrap before they leave office ... it would be a bad move but they aren't known for their smarts now are they.

I think this is the clearest explanation you will EVER hear on the subject of citizenship as it relates to the 14th amendment. Mark goes all the way back to the original authors of the 14th amendment as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to explain what they meant. He uses their own words and writings to show EXACTLY what they meant when they were writing it.

Here's an outline of what I thought were some of the more important points:

1 - The 14th amendments says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ..."

If they meant "all persons" then why did they include the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?"

Also, the word "jurisdiction" here does NOT mean the jurisdiction of the law (i.e. legal jurisdiction) it means "political" jurisdiction (as in allegiance.) This is made clear by the framers of the amendment.

2 - If a LEGAL tourist has a baby here, is that baby automatically a citizen? Answer - NO! If a LEGAL diplomat (or spouse) has a baby here, is that baby automatically a citizen? Answer - NO!

3 - Jacob Howard ... the AUTHOR of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment said "This will NOT ... OF COURSE ... include persons born in the US who are:

a) Foreigners

b) Aliens

c) Who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the US ..."

4 - It defies logic (except to liberals) that an ILLEGAL act committed by the parents can automatically confer American citizenship on their children. That is just stupidity.

This was the first 12-13 minutes of Mark's show of 08-13-2010. If you'd like to pick it up where he left off you can click here to download the show and just skip ahead to about the 12 minute mark. It will only be available for download for the next couple of months though (until about Oct 12, 2010) so if you've stumbled in here through a Google search you may be out of luck.

SEOUL (AFP) – North Korea's military threatened Sunday to launch the "severest punishment" against South Korea for staging massive joint war games with the United States this week.

The North's army and people will "deal a merciless counterblow" to the allies "as it had already resolved and declared at home and abroad", a spokesman for the country's army General Staff said in a statement published by state media.

"The military counteraction of (North Korea) will be the severest punishment no one has ever met in the world," he said.

OK, WTF is this guy thinking about? Seriously, he reminds me of ME when I'm talking about punishing criminals ... PIPE DOWN, YOU DOOFUS. Is this guy drinking? Does he think everyone is just going to forget what he said? Does he plan to follow through? WTF IS WRONG WITH HIM? Too much hot kimchee?

Anyway, this punishment he's going to meetmeat mete out is really going to be something because people have met some severe punishment in the world. I can think of some right off the top of my head:

1 - Being cut up with a chainsaw

2 - Tossed into a live volcano

3 - Being drawn and quartered

4 - Having your bones ground to make bread for a giant

I could go on and on - what could he have in mind? I'm scared, aren't you? How would you feel right now if you lived in South Korea? How would you feel if you lived in North Korea? Why do the Chinese let this guy run off at the mouth? He's keeps putting that whole area of the world in a tizzy.

Friday, August 13, 2010

Ok, so about a year ago I noticed that Obama likes to remind himself that "he's the President." I noticed him saying it all the time and it cracked me up ... as if he couldn't believe it himself so he had to keep saying it ... or, that he's so impressed with himself that he thinks he needs to keep reminding peeps so they can be impressed too. Like a little kid who keeps telling everyone about his new bike.

Anyway, I started saving clips like souvenirs and finally made this montage ... please enjoy.. These are by no means the only ones, he does this all the time -- these are just the ones I could find without trying TOO hard.

I love the last clip here ... "Even though I'm the President of the United States, my power's not limitless." That's right jackass, and we're coming for you as soon as your term is up.

There is another thing he does (which all libs seem to do these days). He "lectures" people. The specific offending vernacular includes "It's not about _______, it's about _______." I absolutely cannot STAND that phrase anymore. Every pompous peckerwood with too much earwax uses it. It makes me want to hit the speaker in the teeth with a ball-peen hammer.

Perhaps the next Obama montage I do will show him using that phrase. I swear he says it every time he speaks. Pay attention, you'll hear ALL the libs doing it now ... as if they are college "professors" imparting their high & mighty knowledge to you plebes.

"Rent Seeker:" - Someone who plays government programs and subsidies for profit instead of actually producing something."Ruling Class:" - Mostly lefties but also people in business and finance who benefit from the regulatory apparatus and the rent-seeking that enriches them.